28 September 2000 WCAG WG telecon

Summary of agenda items for next week's F2F

Actual discussion of proposed changes will occur in following telecons
and discussions on the list. This is just to get a feel for consensus on
edits not to bring the group to consensus.

Break into groups to discuss technology-specific techniques. As part of
this discussion, consider how we will handle "until user agent" clauses.
Can we get rid of? Do we need to state assumptions? Is there some way to
say "this is ideally what we'd like but it's not supported yet so in the
meantime..."

Should we consider XML in this document or keep it separate?

KB believes that creating a new language and writing content in a
language are two different activities for two different audiences,
thus keep them in separate documents.

JW believes that these documents and practices are quickly
converging.

Discuss user interface metaphors and how they are influenced by changes
in technology like Voice Browsing and XForms. How will we address these
metaphors in WCAG 2.0?

Open discussion about reactions to the Device Independent Authoring
Workshop to harvest interesting ideas, update those who did not attend,
and give those who did attend a chance to digest.

With regards to the afternoon with AU WG: ask them to review WCAG 2.0
for dependencies with ATAG 1.0 and discuss how filling out a Web form can
be creating Web content.

Planning

When should we aim to go to last call?

When would people like to see a Recommendation?

When and where is our next face to face meeting? Volunteers to
host?

When should we publish working drafts of the techniques that we've
discussed?

Are people interested in inviting experts in various technologies to
present to the group to educate us and for Q&A about how our spec
relates to other technologies? e.g., invite a MathML guru to discuss
MathML so we can determine how well our draft will cover MathML as
well as what techniques we should develop for MathML.

Normative vs. Non-normative (issue #17 in the
issues list). As part of this discussion Kynn will hopefully
demonstrate (or at least discuss) using XML/XSLT to generate multiple
versions of the document.

If multiple versions exist, how does one claim conformance? How do
we write the conformance statement?

How does one claim conformance on muliple views of documents? How
does an author who is generating multiple views determine if they
conform?

Regrets

Agenda

Agenda for F2F

WC Propose quickly go through list of changes to latest draft. Get "ya's -
good edit" or "nay's - bad edit." Ya's we'll leave as is, the Nay's we'll go
through once we get back and work on to make better. I would like clear idea
if we have consensus on these changes, some were fairly substantial

CS and GR agree good idea.

JW CMN suggests a techniques session. Wishes ATAG would have done more
work on Techniques before going to Rec.

CS, LRG, WC like that idea.

JW Editing on the spot, proposing techniques in smaller groups. Whole
group considering.

WC Also help us to see who interested in which technologies.

GR Definitely helped with UAAG Guidelines last year.

WL Which languages?

WC Name any of 'em! Should first write about those that we get the most
questions about, but should help people using whatever language conform to
WCAG.

WL Want parallel documents to HTML and CSS?

WC Yes.

JW And checklists as discussed last week.

WL The number of items that will be covered by these technologies will be
small. Of the 65 checkpoints, SMIL is only associated with 2.

JW Yes, there will be a limited number.

WC What about XML? Kynn, still think it should be a separate document?

KB Different audience: using a technology versus creating a new
language.

JW Think the distinction will become less.

Resolution: put it on the agenda

CS Stating our assumptions. What do we expect a browser to do? Make that
more concrete.

JW UAAG will be relevant. By the time WCAG 2.0 begins process to Rec we
should have UAAG in place. Will be dependency on them.

CS How to determine when UUA clause is met.

WC Or how to get rid of it.

CS Although spec will always be ahead of implementation.

LGR Seems at odds with the backwards compatibility item.

MM The existing UUA are preferable but not reliable, it is the direction
W3C wants the technology to head. Since Backwards compatibility is the goal of
several specs it seems to put it in "this is how things should have been."

JW We have by and large eliminated "until user agents." last week,
discussed the idea that requirements that are dependent on UA should be
treated in techniques with exceptions and qualifications.

WC Perhaps part of the break-out groups discuss until user agents in
regards to specific technologies in break out sessions on techniques.

JW user interface design and metaphors are being influenced by Voice
Browser working group and XForms.

CS With several of us going to the DIW there should be good new info.

WC Should we have a discussion about that for those who did not go (an
update) as well as letting those of us who did go share thoughts and
ideas?

/* lots of agreement */

WC Anything in specific to discuss with AU WG?

JW What dependencies do we have that ought to be discussed?

WC Anything in particular we want them to think about or read? The new
draft? Specific checkpoints?

WL Forms. Cuts across UA, WCAG, and AU. The browser or server becomes an
authoring tool.

WC What exactly do we need to ask?

WL We have to make our forms requirement so that it acknowledges what the
ATAG requires.

WC So we can ask AU WG for help how to address that.

WL When you fill out a form on a Web page you are a Web author.

MM You're average content management system is essentially that.

WC HTML WG asking for requirements, spend some time thinking about at the
F2F or on the list?

JW We're getting a lot of agenda items, prioritize?

WL HTML, Techniques, when a technique is applicable to a variety of
technologies and priorities appears in one place with no caveat.

JW We haven't dealt with priorities yet.

WC Planning - set milestones, aim for when go to last call, next f2f,
etc.

WC Normative vs non-normative

GR Home page: no link to test pages.

Action WC: Add link to test pages from WCAG Home page underneath the work
on Techniques section.

/* WC goes through proposed agenda items */

GV We have not dealt with the document-based vs. server-based flexibility.
How do our guidelines work if the server actually serves different pages to
different people. "All content should be servable that meets the following
specs."

JW Basically what guideline 2 says. If there are issues with that, then we
should put them into the discussion.

GV One form kicks it out as vanilla HTML (no tables, charts, etc.) like an
alt-text page. In old one, alt-text page is last resort. Perhaps it should
be a first resort if it is databased based.

JW /* Reads from latest draft */

GV Have this discussion before the XML discussion.

JW That's where guideline 6 comes into play - requirements for if you need
to provide a style sheet or other mechanism, etc.